There are problems with quad-core processors and the US version of LTE. That's why both the HTC One X and Samsung Galaxy S3 are quad-core for their international versions but dual-core for their US models.

Microsoft is very US-oriented, so if it doesn't work for the US market, they may not be doing it at all.

Loyal first and foremost to a carrier (US Cellular). Open to either a Lumia 820, or an HTC 8X, or an Ativ S.

There are problems with quad-core processors and the US version of LTE. That's why both the HTC One X and Samsung Galaxy S3 are quad-core for their international versions but dual-core for their US models.

Microsoft is very US-oriented, so if it doesn't work for the US market, they may not be doing it at all.

From what I understand, no current quad core processors have onboard LTE, so the LTE modem would have to be added separately. These separate LTE modems (such as the ones used in first generation LTE Android phones) use more battery power. Thus, the dual core/LTE chipsets are a power saving measure. At least that's what I've heard.

From what little we have seen from WP8 running on a dual core chip, it seems to scream. To be honest, 7.5 screams on a single core SoC as well, so I am not too worried about a lack of quad core, at least in terms of phones.

but I don't want WP8 to limit the OEM from releasing their latest and greatest devices ( like 2010,2011) because of the limitation of the OS

Actually, you really really don't want OEM's releasing WP devices with whatever they deem to be the latest and greatest hardware at any given time. A standardized hardware/software platform is essential to:
- keeping the WP8 OS lean and mean
- preserving Microsoft's ability to deliver OS updates directly to our devices without OEM involvement (a long standing goal they have so far failed to achieve but are trying to complete the legal foundation for)
- giving developers the ability to optimize their apps for a specific hardware platform

Any one of those things is more important than the meaningless core count number on the spec sheet, which brings me to my recommendation that you read this thread on that subject (a long read). In that thread I attempt to explain why, on mobile devices, high-end dual-core CPU's will almost always run your apps faster than high-end quad-core CPU's. All the important players get this:

There are problems with quad-core processors and the US version of LTE. That's why both the HTC One X and Samsung Galaxy S3 are quad-core for their international versions but dual-core for their US models.

There is absolutely no connection between the number of CPU cores and the device's radios (LTE or whatever else). There is no such problem!

Qualcomm is currently the only company offering a SoC with an integrated LTE receiver (Snapdragon). Building a competitive LTE device with any of the competing non-integrated offerings is simply not a viable option (due to battery drain). However, that SoC from Qualcomm is only available in a dual-core variant. That is the only real reason U.S. LTE devices aren't shipping with quad-core CPU's.

Actually, you really really don't want OEM's releasing WP devices with whatever they deem to be the latest and greatest hardware at any given time. A standardized hardware/software platform is essential to:
- keeping the WP8 OS lean and mean
- preserving Microsoft's ability to deliver OS updates directly to our devices without OEM involvement (a long standing goal they have so far failed to achieve but are trying to complete the legal foundation for)
- giving developers the ability to optimize their apps for a specific hardware platform

Any one of those things is more important than the meaningless core count number on the spec sheet, which brings me to my recommendation that you read this thread on that subject (a long read). In that thread I attempt to explain why, on mobile devices, high-end dual-core CPU's will almost always run your apps faster than high-end quad-core CPU's. All the important players get this:

There is absolutely no connection between the number of CPU cores and the device's radios (LTE or whatever else). There is no such problem!

Qualcomm is currently the only company offering a SoC with an integrated LTE receiver (Snapdragon). Building a competitive LTE device with any of the competing non-integrated offerings is simply not a viable option (due to battery drain). However, that SoC from Qualcomm is only available in a dual-core variant. That is the only real reason U.S. LTE devices aren't shipping with quad-core CPU's.

I appreciate your insight along with your always staunch opposition to Quad-Core phones.
In 2-3 years when Quad-Core Mobile Processors (Smartphones) are widely prevalent, I expect you to lead the charge against Hexacore devices of the same type. Because surely we can't have our mobile computing devices breaking boundaries, getting smaller, or becomming more energy efficient.

As someone who is pretty engrained in the PC hardware world both personally and professionally, this makes no sense to me. I want a fast core clock on a dual core. A quad core isn't going to do much else on a device with limited multitasking. And 99% of the applications out there are going to utilize two cores.

Same was said when AMD introduced DC and intel was still using P4 SC at higher clock. Was quite apparent which direction was better as intel does not have an 8ghz SC P8 now, they have Multi core chips.

Same was said when AMD introduced DC and intel was still using P4 SC at higher clock. Was quite apparent which direction was better as intel does not have an 8ghz SC P8 now, they have Multi core chips.

Why do you have more than 640k memory anyway?

Huge difference. That was utilizing the ability to split application load into multiple cores, or not. Here we are talking about splitting it between 2 and 4. Which is pretty much useless with current smartphones with limited multitasking. It makes more sense for devices like tablets.

I don't think anyone is suggested than a quad core A15 (or Krait) would be a bad thing. The annoying part is the people that assume that 4 is better than 2 and that means a quad core A9 is better than a dual core A15 (or Krait).

I would love to see a quad core WP8 phone, but being jealous of the CPU performance of the Exynos or Tegra 3 is silly.

I view the fascination with quad core to be based mostly on the fact that Android is so poorly designed and optimized. A dual core device running a well designed OS can still run circles around quad core running a bad OS. The current situation in tablets is a good example. Even the fastest quad core Asus tablets have some degree of lag since they are essentially hamstrung by the OS. My BlackBerry playbook with a 1 ghz dual core processor is laughably smoother than my Transformer Prime running Android 4.1. I expect people will see a few quad core Android phones in the relatively near future, being touted for their amazing processing power. In real life, they will be just about as fast and smooth as a new iPhone or Windows Phone 8, and will also have the battery life that goes along with shoving a quad core in a phone....

As far as I know, the latest S4 quad cpu does have an LTE modem on it, it just took them longer to work out the issues so it couldn't be done for this generation

a5cent is right and his thread is spot on, first of all look how well WP runs on a lumia 710, much better than a lot of mid range droid devices with better specs - that should make you think.

I have a intel i3930K 6 cores 12 threads and 95% of the software doesn't or can't utilise all six cores effectively, the amount of time I watch task manager and curse all 12 threads sitting there chugging away using 8% of each thread.
Sometimes the difference between that and my i5 cpu is negligible.

There is no point of a quad core cpu until software developers are ready to use it, they aren't on android yet, and they aren't on WP8 - Id swap quad core cpu for optimised dual core OS and better battery life anyday of the week
Like I said, look at the 710, it doesn't feel laggy at all - the proof is in the pudding

Why do we expect that a quad-core phone should somehow be cheaper than a quad-core desktop system? It's ludicrous.

Actually, quad-core phone CPU's are/will be much cheaper than quad-core desktop systems! Why? Because price has nothing to do with the number of cores! Really! It doesn't! You are making a common but fundamental mistake, likely because it appears that the number of cores on desktop CPUs and their price is related (which isn't really correct either).

Here's the thing... price is only related to die-size. Nothing else. Die-size is a function of the number of transistors and manufacturing technology (node size):

All CPU designers are given a set of constraints they must consider when developing their CPU's, but the constraints server/desktop-CPU designers and mobile-CPU designers edge up against first, well, they differ:

The die-size constraint is basically a function of the highest acceptable manufacturing cost per SKU (bigger die-size = higher manufacturing costs). These "huge" CPU designs that target the largest possible die-size end up being that generations flagship CPUs. From there, server/desktop-CPU designers cut the number of cores and reduce cache sizes to get CPUs that use less transistors which result in smaller dies and lower manufacturing costs. From this approach we currently get server/desktop-CPU's ranging from $100 up to $1000 which integrate between 500M and 1.5B transistors and two, four or six cores (eight cores in special cases). That is why many relate less cores to cheaper prices, when it is actually about die-size.

However! Mobile-CPUs hit their power and thermal limitations long before getting anywhere close to the limits of what can be cost effectively manufactured. So, the number of power sucking transistors mobile-CPU designers can cram onto a die are far fewer, which means the die-size can be much smaller, resulting in much lower manufacturing costs. From this we get products ranging from $10 up to $30, which includes not just the CPU but the entire SoC (GPU and a whole host of specialized co-processors, sometimes even including circuitry related to radios).

So, the mobile-CPU designer gets limited to a a much smaller die-size (remember, transistor count, manufacturing technology and die-size are all proportionally related). Assuming revolutionary advances in battery technology aren't just around the corner (seems unlikely), that die-size isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future. We will get advances in manufacturing technology, giving us smaller transistors that suck less juice, but those advances will instantly be invested into CPU's with a proportionally larger number of transistors leading to more powerful CPU's on roughly the same die-size as before. Because the die-size will remain similar, so will SoC prices (for the foreseeable future).

Hitting different constraints first is why server/desktop-CPU and mobile-CPU design is fundamentally different.

And yes, that is also why high-end dual-core and quad-core smartphone SoC's will also be very similar in price... same number of transistors using the same manufacturing technology = same die-size = same price

In the words of Spock, "I do not dispute it. I merely state that it's wrong."

You can argue tech specs all day long (and I've been doing IT work 20 years) but it doesn't change the fact that it's not a relevant spec yet... desktop or mobile.

Hmm.. agree.. but I wasn't trying to argue that it is a relevant spec (I'd probably be the last person on this site to do that). I was trying to explain why you will never see mobile SoC's reaching the price point of desktop CPUs (at least for the foreseeable future).

It reminds me of my co-worker who opted for a slower clock speed i7 over an ivy bridge i5 because the i7 has hyperthreading.

He has yet to use any application that utilizes hyperthreading.

A silly world we live in.

SB clocks much better than IB. Why I bought a 2600k over a IB of the same clock. Well that and Microcenter had 2600k for $199 + $50 off Z77 mobo. No brainer for me. Slapped on a cheap water cooler and I am now at 4.8ghz for the fun of it. Try to hit 4.8 on that i5 IB chip you think your co-worker should have gotten. Not saying thats why he got it, but the stock clock speed difference is not noticeable by anyone not running a synthetic benchmark. So, why not have the hyperthreading for cheaper than the "newer" IB i5?

Originally Posted by GoodThings2Life

Hasn't anybody else noticed that quad-core CPU's aren't even that common on desktops yet? Just because you see 4 processors (thanks, hyperthreading), we're still dominantly dual-core.

Why, then, do we obsess over quad-core phones? Why do we expect that a quad-core phone should somehow be cheaper than a quad-core desktop system? It's ludicrous.

I'm not against it, I'm a tech guy for crying out loud I WANT it, but I'm realistic too.

RISC vs CISC is also a reason for the cheaper prices. Simpler architecture means less transistors. Less stuff equal less cost.
Same reason ARM is moving to multi core is the same reason x86 architecture moved to multiple cores. It was easier to get more performance from more cores than from clocking the CPUs to light speed. Athlon 64 X2 practically destroyed the P4EE clocked at 3.73ghz.

a5cent is right and his thread is spot on, first of all look how well WP runs on a lumia 710, much better than a lot of mid range droid devices with better specs - that should make you think.

I have a intel i3930K 6 cores 12 threads and 95% of the software doesn't or can't utilise all six cores effectively, the amount of time I watch task manager and curse all 12 threads sitting there chugging away using 8% of each thread.
Sometimes the difference between that and my i5 cpu is negligible.

There is no point of a quad core cpu until software developers are ready to use it, they aren't on android yet, and they aren't on WP8 - Id swap quad core cpu for optimised dual core OS and better battery life anyday of the week
Like I said, look at the 710, it doesn't feel laggy at all - the proof is in the pudding

All OS are more optimized than people think. Android OS works just fine on bottom end hardware. But, when you start adding widgets and apps that do background work you kill it. Now in that respect its quite obvious that WP is better written than android. But if a killer app was designed to run on as many cores as possible you would see an immediate rush of people clamoring for a quad core phone.

Take your 6 core and transcode a video. Or, do a rendering in strata, or play around with a 500mb image in photoshop. Then you will love your 12 HT cores. If you do not do any of that stuff at home, then you wasted your money on your shiny new chip. Upgrading from SB to IB is pretty much a waste for gaming and surfing but I am sure you realize that.

Watching the Nokia phone app that edits video and pictures in real time, that could very very easily work faster with a quad core. So look at the software that Nokia is making with DC, what do you think they could do with a hex core ARM?